Charge all Taiping Prison officers allegedly involved, not just five

It is deeply concerning that only five prison officers have been charged in the Magistrate’s Court with injuring three inmates at Taiping Prison, in separate incidents last January. (Malay Mail, 3 July 2026)

The Suhakam inquiry revealed that about 60 prison officers were involved in inflicting violence on about 100 inmates. The inmates were already subdued and handcuffed when the officers assaulted and beat them with batons, even spraying pepper spray in their eyes.

Justice will not be served if only a few, and not all, are charged and tried for their crimes.

Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet) urges that all prison officers who inflicted torture and violence on these detainees be charged and tried in court. The court alone, after a fair trial, should decide guilt – and if convicted, hand down punishment according to law.

Following orders is no defence for a crime. No prison officer should commit crimes, and any public officer has the right to disobey an order that requires them to break the law.

With the charging of the five – six in total, since one officer was charged earlier under Section 304(b) of the Penal Code – questions remain. The five have only been charged under Section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) or Section 324 (voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means).

Why have the other prison officers who beat, kicked, used pepper spray and tortured detainees not been charged? Did they not break the law? Even officers who stood by without personally inflicting torture would still have committed an offence, given that they were public officers responsible for the safety of all detainees in their care.

What about the lies and cover-up?

The alleged perpetrators are public officers. The fact that evidence was destroyed, that false reports were filed, and that they even lied during the Suhakam public inquiry are serious offences. Those responsible must also be charged and tried in court.

Kepong MP Lim Lip Eng raised this point too. He asked why those suspected of filing false reports, approving false information, falsifying medical records and covering up the truth have not been publicly charged.  

He stressed that accountability must extend across the entire chain of command, not only to the lower-ranking officers directly involved in the alleged abuse. “Those who commit violence must face the law. Those who file false reports, falsify records, and those who cover up or condone such acts will also not escape responsibility,” he said.

If the public officers who destroyed evidence and lied are not charged, it will create a public perception that the ‘Madani’ government and the home minister are, once again, protecting those criminally liable. Worse, it damages the integrity of all public officers in Malaysia.

Madpet, like most people in Malaysia, wants honest and capable public officers. Instead, distrust is growing. How can the public believe in a government or its officers if seems that tampering with evidence and lying are tolerated when perpetrators are not charged or tried in court?

Madpet urges that all public officers, including their superiors or even the minister, if applicable, who may have been involved in tampering or destroying evidence, filing false reports or lying be charged. Anyone who ordered, instructed or condoned such actions must not escape criminal liability.

Delayed care

Suhakam’s inquiry report revealed that the deceased, Gan Chin Eng, who died on 17 January 2025, was left unattended by medical staff for about 40 minutes. He was then taken to Taiping Hospital – roughly 2km away – in a prison van rather than an ambulance, again unattended by medical personnel during transport. Had he been sent to the nearby government hospital more quickly, he might not have died.

The failure to transport him promptly, and the conduct of the medical staff involved, may itself be a crime that contributed to his death. Those responsible could face a charge under Section 304A (causing death by negligence), which carries a prison term of up to two years, a fine, or both.

Don’t outsource prison healthcare

The Taiping Prison case raises a wider question: has the government outsourced healthcare for detainees in prisons and other detention facilities to private doctors, clinics and hospitals?

Madpet urges that healthcare for detainees in government detention facilities should never be outsourced. It should always sit under the Ministry of Health. Any detention facility housing more than 100 people should have a permanent government clinic, staffed around the clock.

Why did the Taiping Prison authorities not immediately call Taiping Hospital to send ambulances and medical staff when about 100 detainees were injured after the incident? Facilities far from government hospitals should have an ambulance on 24-hour standby. Prompt, proper medical care saves lives.

Relying on private doctors carries another risk: will they, too, be tempted to lie or file false reports to protect their ‘contracts’ – which may have also happened here, based on Suhakam’s inquiry report suggests. Medical documents were allegedly fabricated to protect the perpetrators. One record cited by Suhakam attributed Gan’s injuries to a fall in the toilet, rather than to the torture and violence inflicted by prison officers.

Public sector doctors, who have no contractual relationship to protect, may prove more ethical and honest.

Madpet is also concerned by the delay in charging the five officers, given the incident took place in January 2025. When a crime happens in a government facility, and the accused are public officers, a swift investigation and prosecution matters most.

Madpet’s demands

Madpet calls for the following:

• All prison officers should be required to wear body cameras while on duty.
• CCTV recordings from all places of detention should be transmitted immediately to a central documentation centre to prevent evidence being destroyed. On-site recordings, as this case shows, can be tampered with or deleted to protect perpetrators. Tampering with or destroying CCTV or body camera recordings should carry a deterrent sentence.
• Suhakam and its delegated representatives should have the right to immediate access to any place where a human rights violation is alleged. The current law allows red-tape delays by the authorities in charge of such places, giving time for evidence to be destroyed or tampered with. Section 4(2)(d) of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 should be amended accordingly.
• Lying or giving false testimony under oath during a Suhakam inquiry should be a criminal offence under the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999, with a deterrent sentence attached. Refusing to attend after being summoned as a witness should also be an offence.
• Section 15(2) of the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act should be repealed. The section states: “No person shall, in respect of any evidence written or oral given by that person to or before the Commission, be liable to any action or proceeding, civil or criminal in any court except when the person is charged with giving or fabricating false evidence.” Anyone who breaks the law should be liable to be charged and to face disciplinary action. Evidence from a Suhakam inquiry should also be usable in civil suits brought by victims or families of deceased victims against the perpetrators.
• Malaysia should enact laws specifically covering offences by public officers who commit torture, cause hurt or death, or otherwise break the law in the course of their duties.
• Malaysia should enact laws criminalising torture, enforced disappearance and extrajudicial killing. Failure to do so risks the perception that the government does not oppose such crimes.

Charles Hector issued this statement on behalf of Malaysians Against Death Penalty and Torture (Madpet).

Support Aliran's work with an online donation. Scan this QR code using your mobile phone e-wallet or banking app: